Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
erlyweb
Home
About this group
Apply for group membership
Message from discussion <title>s and other non-component data
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
David King  
View profile  
 More options Nov 24 2007, 12:52 am
From: David King <dk...@ketralnis.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:52:06 -0800
Local: Sat, Nov 24 2007 12:52 am
Subject: Re: [erlyweb-list] Re: <title>s and other non-component data
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> So, instead of returning

> {with_phased_vars,
>   [{title, "foo"},
>    {meta, "bar"}],
>  {ewc, navbar, [A]}}

> you would return

> {response,
>   [{phased_vars,
>       [{title, "foo"},
>       {meta, "bar"}],
>    {body, {ewc, navbar, [A]}}]}.

How does that stack? How would I return two {ewc}s? Like this?:

{response,
   [{phased_vars,
       [{title, "foo"},
        {meta, "bar"}],
    {body, [{ewc, navbar, [A]}
            {ewc, cookies, [A, cookies:find()]}]}]}.

It looks good though; if I'm returning phased values like that, I'm  
probably setting headers and whatnot, since I'm probably the initial  
{ewc}. The only problem is that only initial {ewc}s can do it, not  
nested ones (unless there are many levels of {phased,ewc...}). That's  
fine for my purposes, but I don't know about most people.

> The 'response' tuple already lets you return values that aren't passed
> to the view function. I think we should reuse it.

> What do you think?

> Yariv

> On Nov 17, 2007 6:35 PM, David King <dk...@ketralnis.com> wrote:

>>> Yeah, I agree. I think 'with_properties' and 'set_properties' sounds
>>> too generic, though. Maybe 'with_meta_vals' or 'with_phased_vals'?

>> I like with_phased_vals, that's relatively clear


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google